Being an Introvert or an Extrovert has to do with age, time and place and not about some intrinsic quality about ourselves. Our ass being glued on a chair, playing games days on end does not suggest introversion. Finding ourselves in college and being more outgoing in parties does not suggest extroversion. Situations enable a cocktail of behaviors, not the other way around.
No single person is either an introvert or an extrovert. No one can safely assume how much extroversion or introversion is adequate to safely label someone as such. Psychology, much like with everything else it mumbles about, assumes that the "average" behavior is the "normal" one. This hypothesis is erroneous. What is "average" when it comes to something as complex and dynamic as human behavior, is a statistical illusion. No single person exists in that spectrum. The entire narrative of introversion/extroversion is based on an abstract idea that has no basis to reality nor can it be scientifically falsified.
Technology, much like culture, has molded our behavior in ways we can hardly fathom. When we barricade ourselves and play games in front of the computer while chatting away in a group, we are still sociable. In other words, based on the proponents of this over-simplistic archaic theory, we are being extroverted while being introverted. It is nonsensical.
Chatting online is yet another form of communication. Conservative critics might argue that it is not a "genuine" one. This is though an emotional response, not an analytical evaluation. Even so, if one dares to delve into that spectrum, all forms of communication can subjectively have negative and positive aspects. None is truly authentic or valid. In much the same way, speaking on the telephone, texting or mailing letters still counts as an equally valid form of communicating. Communication, much like language, evolves. We cannot restrict ourselves into past definitions of communication in order to define our roles of introversion and extroversion. This is not only unscientific but also intellectually dishonest. Imagine for example early homosapiens that used mostly vowel based languages judging a modern culture for "spoiling" it with "too many" consonants.
The jungian narrative suggests that introverts get their energy from within themselves while extroverts get it from those around them. This is a false assumption since we are all social animals that need each other to survive. No matter who you are, you still need other human beings to get motivated. You might not have to talk or interact with them as much but surely you will use their tools and accomplishments (such as software and hardware) in order to give meaning to your own life. Your energy, whatever than means, still comes from others around you.
People like to pride themselves nowadays for being introverts — meaning that they are closed to themselves. Apparently this brings a level of self loathing into play since more and more people claim that nobody understands them. We forget that being misunderstood is rather something inevitable in a world that is governed by technology. Our devices redefine the way we communicate. Before the internet people used to get more or less the same kind of information and thus it was easier to relate to each other. Today, we are all using multiple sources of webbed information. Their combination creates extremely unique individuals that do not abide to generic forms or identity such as those who were previously palpated by religion, culture and politics. Evidently everyone feels more alienated. This is merely the result for being an individual.
There is no need to label onself with the epithet of introversion for such an act degrades the individual into a repackaged pop-psychology meme. We all need to belong somewhere and strive to define ourselves, but choosing such epithets is not the way to go. Admittedly, it is challenging to live in the communication revolution and we all might be a little confused. Even so, this should motivate us to be more vigilant with how we are defined rather than being so easily labeled.
I strongly disagree, it's like you are arguing that there is not a "distinction" in humans in "fast running" ones and "slow running" ones and you claim that we are all "the same". We are not the same, we all have different attributes and while for some of us "running" is a much easier activity, for others it can be quite laborious. And I'm not just talking about "fitness" levels here.
For example...
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23201182
Find an Extrovert (on the extreme side) and tell him to STFU for a whole day and see how this will work out!
[EDIT}
Upvoting for visibility
Very good rebuttal. I'd add to it that there seem to be two main misconceptions at play here too:
What does it really mean to be introverted? If your introvert/extrovert classification is lynch-pinning on motivation, how does that apply to individuals that just aren't very motivated to begin with?
More importantly though, introversion/extroversion is most likely a gradient (kind of like gender). Most people don't 100% fit in a nice pigeonhole of a label, but for succinct communications labels are very useful and efficient. That is to say, a 60/40 and 90/10 (introvert/extrovert respectively) are both "introverts" but would most likely have observable differences in social behavior. In fact, the spectrum itself is basically describing behavior.
Though, to that end of behavioral assessment there is definitely some re-evaluation needed for our criteria of what is a "genuine" social encounter.
I agree with chryspano. Also people wth a higher I.Q tend to be an introvert because they're thinking about something intelligent to say and are afraid of talking nonesense; lower I.Q people just talk of the game or the tv show thay saw yesterday and budge in any argument screaming their opinion with no second thought.
Most of these factors are genetic and can't be changed .
I.Q is bullshit to begin with . Also, if you are thinking to say something intelligent, then you are not so intelligent to begin with.
Even playing Chess is bullshit. Just move your pieces randomly and you'll beat Garry Kasparov, because being a chess grandmaster is just a social construct and we are all the same. Yea, sure :)
this is again irrelevant. playing chess requires training in a specific subject. Being an introvert does not require training.
you need to upgrade your arguments
haha. This is so good! mud slinging at its best. Why care so much about IQ or some arbitrary number so we can compare amongst ourselves?
Geez.
Not entirely, we somewhat know what to expect from someone with 70 100 130 or 160IQ
IQ is not bullshit at all. It is the best way we have to make a generalization of our capabilities. Lower IQ is even associated with lower impulse control and violence. Very high IQ is also associated with certain negative traits.
A person who scores 80 on an IQ test will NEVER be able to take a doctors degree. A person with 60 IQ will never be able to do manual labour without proper supervision.
IQ is probably the single most important tool we could use to improve everyone's lives. But it is so personal and "cold". It's so much shame connected to it, because it basically says; "You have an IQ of 80 and you can't become this and this and that" But rationally speaking it would be better for that person if he would accept that. My IQ is somewhere between 115-120. Which means I shouldn't go for certain things. I wouldn't be a great engineer. I probably couldn't get through a phd in maths or physics. My IQ has many limitations. I'm not incredibly bright. I'm a about a standard deviation above average. I understand some things, but there are tons of smarter people than me who look at me like a simpleton. And someone with an IQ of 80 is a simpleton to me. And someone with an IQ of 50 is a simpleton to them.
What's there to be so scared of?
Research on IQ is very well documented. But because of "hurt feelings" on behalf of others no one really pays any attention to it. It's a big mistake in my opinion.
No you can't because, yet again, is all about training and cultural relevance.
I debunk the whole thing with scientific studies here
https://steemit.com/intelligence/@kyriacos/iq-and-eq-cannot-measure-intelligence
according to the definition for intelligence on google intelligence is "the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills." the ability to acquire skills is what IQ tests do though the use of Logic puzzles that anyone can do, that require no training. It's tests you on your ability to solve problems its culturally relevant because its a good way to measure the ability of people to figure shit out. and if people can do better on the tests with training then they can train themselves to be more intelligent
I think your problem is that everyone else is talking about this definition of intelligence, and I think that you mean something different when you say intelligence. You really need to define your terms if you want to have any kind of constructive dialogue otherwise everyone is just arguing past one another.
if you can train and improve on them then they do aggregate training. I.Q tests are based on the western model of understanding the world. This is why most African countries have very low marks. This is why most indigenous people don't do good on them. Take any high I.Q person in such a country and they will starve to death because the environment requires different kind of intelligence.
actually not. if they stop training the I.Q falls back. in other words, intelligence is nothing but gaining expertise on a specific way of thinking.
let me guess your I.Q. score didn't come back very positive, did it.
Let me guess. You have no idea how to argue the subject and resort to strawman fallacies.
FYI: 136
false dichotomy and wrong example.
We are not but we don't have to fall into a false dichotomy either
again, wrong example. I could say some people have black skin and some white and still be using a wrong example.
This is a scientific study about something completely different. The study can be falsified and replicated. Introversion/Extroversion is hearsay and opinions which can change in a person's life style depending on the situation.
I can find an "extrovert" and examine their responses when they are 15 and when they are 45. When they are in college and when they meet their first true love.
again. situations matter. these are not intrinsic values.
My example is not wrong, the one about the skin is though.
It's almost impossible for an Introvert to become a fully Extrovert, this requires a lot of "work" and suffering and I see no reason for someone to strive for it. "Extroversion" simply drains our batteries, period, how much of it we can withstand is another story.
It's not different, you claim that everyone can run with the same pace, you neglet the fact that for some groups of people this activity is much easier and for others it's harder, a lower BMI group like those with GS can run 10km with less effort. When you ask from everyone to "run at the same pace" you have to acknowledge that some groups are strugling to do that, it's not easy for them and it has nothing to do with "how much they try" obviously they try and they strungle more than those who seem to outperform them.
Of course there can be some variations through life. Genetics and our environment is what I think mostly determine us, we can try to change part of our environment but we can't do much about our genes.
It's impossible because nobody is a fully introvert and nobody is a fully extrovert. We are all a blend depending on the situation. Introvert exclusive and extrovert exclusive is a culture meme. You are online all day talking to people. You are not an introvert.
I don't claim everyone runs with the same pace. I claim that people sometimes run fast and sometimes slower and that this is not a race or a competition. Again, false example. You use physiology. I use situation related example. Again, someone who talks to 100 people at a party is the same as you who talks to 100 people online.
well, this is all there is to the equation..
thing is there is no scientific basis that genes make you an introvert or an extrovert. In fact, there is no scientific evidence that at all that is falsifiable and replicable because the dynamics are so fluid.
it is a cultural meme. nothing more, nothing less.
I'm starting to doubt that you have ever met Introverts and Extroverts that you have understand them, part of the "problem" is that most people rank somewhere in the midle and you can't easily tell the difference in the first place. Another point of posible confusion is when an Extrovert or someone that "ranks" somewhere in the midle lives in an environment that forces him to behave more like an Introvert, ofcource he is not an Introvert! and you could be 100% accurate in this case, perhaps it's this group of people and behaviour that lead you to post this article.
"No, you are not an Extrovert" could as easily be as accurate as your title is.
You are going in circles mate. At least read another person arguing against it.
Your personal opinion and experience is rather irrelevant. this is why we have science. You just bought into the meme characteristics and you are reflecting on that belief
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-buddha-was-introvert/201404/there-is-no-such-thing-introvert-or-extrovert
As a person who has gone through different introversion/extroversion phases during my lifetime, I agree that introversion cannot be a definition of one's personality but rather a description of their current phase. I know there are some who prefer to form stronger bonds with fewer people and others who prefer to form more casual bonds with more people. However as everything else in life this depends on many complex random interactions which shape our behaviour and it is something that can be changed according to circumstances. Labeling someone as "introvert" is way too simplistic. Social withdrawal can be an effect of low self-confidence, or nourishing a need for uniqueness, or disinterest due to an illness/deficiency, or dissatisfaction with the current communication system, or being busy with other projects, etc.
Then we have the questions: Who is more introverted, a person who doesn't meet anyone in real life but chats all day long in online groups, or a person who hangs out with more people but needs privacy and alone time for a longer period of time?
Or who is more introverted, a person who works in a highly sociable environment and has learned to socialize with many customers and colleagues out of necessity, or a person who works from home and has learned to communicate with less people in a more deep and effective way? The problem is that you cannot measure just the result and ignore the parameters.
Very interesting points, @elemenya. There does, however, seem to be a significant difference between online interaction and in-person. The former seeming to take more effort.
It takes more effort for some, not for others
Have you seen Good Will Hunting? I think often, especially smart people with high IQ's tend to try and rationalise trauma. Their minds start to take over their personality if that makes any sense.
Excellent points about a person's life situation weighing on a person's tendencies to be more introverted or extroverted. We all have moments of wavering toward one side or the other, I imagine. Like you, I've experienced this in different phases of my life. I agree that the "introvert" label is too simplistic and potentially harmful, because it seems restrictive, and it could even doom a person toward social withdrawal.
Yaaaaassss!
I mean, good post elemenya you really made me think.
This post received a 4.5% upvote from @randowhale thanks to @thomasaquinasftw! For more information, click here!
Any labels that one puts on themselves are limiting us, especially when they supposedly apply to our intrinsic qualities. I would say that there are certainly people with different levels of a need for interaction with other people and I would say that a sizable chunk of that is dictated by our innate personality, not just our situation and prior experience which surely play a large role too.
But I absolutely agree, labeling yourself as either one is a useless act that can easily do more harm than good. And if you want to measure something like that, don't view it as something binary, but as a spectrum and it's a spectrum one could certainly move along with time as you suggested.
well said
Thank you and thanks for taking the time to read and reply.
People are always trying to explain their behavior and feelings, and using a word like introvert or extrovert is easier than trying to make sense of all the reasons to ones behavior. I do believe that genes affect our behavior to some extent, but most people who call them selves "introvert" or "extrovert" could behave completely differently in a different time and place.
E.g. I used to think of myself as a extrovert when I was younger, then at age 16 I moved to a new country where I did not speak the language and I was really quiet for the first weeks until I started to learn some Spanish. But by then most people around me had gotten used to me not talking and started thinking of me as the quiet girl, and they basically stopped talking to me. At first I tried to explain my silent behavior according to the surroundings, that I did not talk much because I did not know the language, but with time I even started viewing myself as a introvert and therefor I started behaving as one. And my behavior has kept changing back and forth from being more social and talkative to more withdrawn depending on my surroundings and the people I am with.
So I do completely agree with you @kyriacos that the environment has a huge impact on our behavior and that labels like introvert and extrovert tells more about our situation than our actual personality. Thank you for writing this post, I really enjoyed reading it! And I can see that you have awoken a lot of conversation :)
Excellent example. Thank you for sharing this
Hmm, labels.
Could it be that along with this evolution in communication that people have begun to feel more isolated, so they seek out groups based on the labels they put out in social media (which is amazingly fertile ground for pop-psy)?
Trying to communicate everything in 140 characters and a few emojis makes it a lot easier when you can just say "introvert" or "extrovert".
Communication is the exchange of ideas, that's definitely happening and for some, doing it over the internet is less frightening. That's the good side of that double edged sword.
I'd like to think everyone will come out the other side of this technological evolution as better people. Technology has a tendency to get out ahead of our ethics & morality.
indeed. In a way they are used as a meme. Summary for identity.
Can we expect to begin seeing people gathering by way of some app where every (insert emoji here) will gather in one place?
That's the sharp-cutty edge of the sword.
I prefer to be multi-faceted.
meep
I think @ionlysaymeep is stalking me.
Or maybe there's an ionlysaymeep meetup happening soon?
meep
This post received a 2.9% upvote from @randowhale thanks to @kyriacos! For more information, click here!
Hmm. Not sure I entirely agree - but I don't entirely disagree either. I don't like large groups of people, but if necessary, I can function (quite well) in that environment. I just find it exhausting. I like being on my own. I don't play many computer games. I read books. I greatly prefer communication that is considered to mere verbal diarrhoea, so prefer the written word. Or the still image, not that fond of TV either. I'm a rock musician who hates loud noise. I can strut my stuff onstage, but go home, alone, to blissful silence. I rarely listen to background music. I like to live inside my own head.
So you can see why I simultaneously agree and disagree with you. I am able to do the extrovert things, but I don't like them as much as the introvert things. I suspect you've undermined your point a little by talking about computer games, as I can neatly sidestep that point ;)
I agree with you about in-game communication, by the way. My son does lots of it. I don't spend much time gaming, but when I do, I avoid communication with other players. I have tried it, and find it more stressful even than large real-life groups. The lack of visual cues makes it too difficult to manage etiquette.
Having said all of that - I actually agree with the bigger point, which is that the definition of "normal" is in fact discriminatory, and although my character traits (which have not changed noticeably with age) may fit a certain dysfunction, I am not disabled or in need of a psychologist or psychiatrist. I just like my own company. I don't need medicating for that. I'm as "normal" as the next person. ;-)
Hi @dangwalt. I feel the same way you do--no need to over-identify with labels, but there is validity (at least for me) in the preference for peaceful and solitary activities over boisterous ones. A younger me certainly preferred larger social groups but as I mature, I find being alone and focused provides greater satisfaction. (Said the lady on social media). Hee!
Haha - yeah, we may be undermining our point... ;-)
But agreed, younger me certainly did party - and I still do from time to time. But that's always been, for me, a secondary activity. The things that I really value, and have always valued, are generally more solitary activities...
Which might invite a certain kind of follow up comment, but I'm not making it! ;)
Oh, and - nice cat :-D
Again, if you have lived 100 years ago this would not have happened. You don't have an intrinsic behavior of "preferring to be alone or with smaller groups". Technology aided this behavior and reinforces it. This doesn't make you "introvert".
No, that's where I wholly disagree with you. My preference for my own company is not predicated on technology. In fact, I use modern tech far less than most. And I'm old enough to remember before computers and mobile phones. And I preferred my own company then too. I recall an occasion in school when we were asked to design our own coat-of-arms and motto. My motto was "Silence is golden." And that was 1981 or 1982. I don't think I knew anyone with a computer or mobile phone (not sure the latter had been invented), and we did not possess a television in my home.
I do accept that for many, your analysis applies. But I have the sort of mind that enjoys quite contemplation. Maybe in the past I'd have been a monk (though I am also of a logical mindset, so maybe not).
Having said that, I love steam engines and railways, so 100 years ago you would probably have found me sitting alongside a railway line somewhere watching the trains. For the time, that was the most modern, exciting tech there was... ;)
Introversion is a character type - always has been, it's there in characters in literature going back hundreds of years or more. Our modern assignation of introversion to a large portion of the population is, I agree, largely a result of technology.
But I, and many like me, would find your insistence that we're just as social an animal as the next troubling. I'm not. I never have been. And you cannot make me be so. To attempt to force me to fit your concept of normal is as unreasonable as the average shrink insisting that I'm autistic and need medication...
Another way of saying all of that is - some people are more social than others. I'm at the less sociable end of the line. What word you choose to describe that is up to you, but introvert will do. Loner is another. Solitary is yet another. Or hermit... I'm sure I can think of more if necessary! These words would not exist if they were not applicable to some people.
To be honest I find large crowds of people to be overwhelming, I have never enjoyed those sorts of situations. I find my self much more comfortable with smaller groups of people. Even in large groups I prefer to branch off with smaller numbers of people, and it is based upon this that I call my self introverted. I have never been the life of the whole party, I am comfortable being the life of a smaller party within the whole party. Being an introvert doesn't define me, but it does in a way describe the situations where I am more comfortable.
Perhaps if you "train" yourself with more exposure it might come easier. In fact, I guarantee you that it will become easier and easier with more exposure. Humans adopt in such way. There is nothing intrinsic inside of us that makes us fear large crowds or feeling unfmocortbale. Rather, the modern inclusion in our shitholes we call homes turned us into agoraphobics (more or less).
You still need others to draw your energy from. This is all it matters, not the amount of people. You are as introvert as everyone else. You just happen to related to less people. Everyone has a limit and it can change depending on the type of job, psychological state, exposure, cultural paradigm and situation.
My one business coach once emphasized to me the difference between content and process in human interaction. it took me a while to get it, but has made a huge positive difference in the way I interact with people. When your analytical mind becomes a defense mechanism it can mess things up in relationships I think.
From what I've heard Jung has stated, a person who is purely a extrovert/introvert would be in a lunatics asylum. People are both, but people have a preference.
A person has to have awareness of their mind and the outside world together to stay sane.
Jung has defined Introversion/extroversion:
Introversion: One who is a introvert is primarily concerned with the subject (yourself). The real world is the inner-workings of the mind. In theory the introvert processes the world like a mound of clay, objects get molded into the clay leaving a impression. The introvert pays attention to impression the object made on them. The extrovert pays attention to the object primarily and not the impressions.
From what I understand about a "Introvert". (humor me) In theory they have a accounting ledger inside their brains. They need to make sure the ledger is "balanced" eventually. If the ledger is not updated they dont feel connected to the "real world".
Extroversion: One is concerned with the "object". The outside world is the real world.
So, Yes through nature and nurture a person does have a preference for One vs the other. Technology may change our genetics over time to favor introversion. You can have quiet and/or shy extroverts and have boisterous and/or bombastic introverts.
Look into Micheal pierce on Youtube he explains Introvert/extrovert well and check out on Reddit r/MBTI.
We have the preference but we are never one or the other hence the bogus of the terminology.
So the terminology shouldn't be used period?
yeap
Great post my sister use to be very introverted but in those days they called it being shy. Later on they told her she had anxiety, she didn't buy into it and trained her mind to break out of that frame of thinking and today she has become a doctor. I know it can be tough be its possible because I have seen it with my own sister. Thanks for sharing this post.
it's a tricky situation. Environment is the major player here.
It has to come into play because another example I have is my mother one day just couldn't drive anymore. Just out of the blue no car accidents nothing but every time she attempted to drive on a highway she gets panic attack and this after 35 years of driving. So yes environment and the mind have a lot to do with it.
How have you been?
I've always seen introversion/extraversion different to how its described here. I never thought about it as 'how social you are' or how much of a geek you are, but more like a rechargeable battery.
An extrovert recharges their battery by interacting with humans, engaging in discussion, ideas and inspiration come from their own mouth as they talk and this is why they are often perceived as the life of the party or whatever.
Introverts go out with a fully charged battery which drains as they interact. Eventually, depending on the individual, that battery dies and they no longer want to be a part of this scenario.
Charging an introvert up may involve intellectual stimulation via books or online debates or whatever, whereas an extravert strives harder to create those situations of intellectual persuit and stimulation.
As you say, it's possibly a non-scientific construct, but as a general term to describe somebody, it works perfectly well. I'm clearly an introvert compared to my sister, for example, but I'm likely extraverted compared to, well, the person I don't know because they're hiding away indoors 24/7.
I don't think it works like that with all the time. We all have our moments. For example friends of mine that want to "recharge alone" rather spend time with their girlfriend and chat online.
I have heard that model too. I partly agree with it. But I also think introverts can be geniuses at presenting themselves as extroverts for social purposes.
Bill Gates, famously
meep
Great example @mobbs
meep
Do you think Zuckerberg too maybe?
I am 40% introverted though it's proved, took many tests :-)
Postingan yang sangat bagus kawan,saya suka dengan postingan seperti itu karna dengan melihat gambar seperti itu saya ingat akan sebuah seni yang sering di buat oleh banyak manusia,seni seperti salah satu dari kesukaan saya kawan.terimakasih
Follow me @rizalfajri
Online tests are as valid as measuring fart density on the top of a mountain.
It's true that being over-connected and or using our phones and social media to communicate is badly seen. But like everything new, people need time to adapt.
precisely.
Hi @kyriacos. While I agree that self-defining can be limiting, I continue to believe that there does appear to exist a bifurcation in human behavior as it relates to tolerance for social engagement. Perhaps a superficial observation, but some people DO seem to be easily exhausted by social interaction (particularly in person and not online), and others appear to gain significant satisfaction and strength from same. How do we explain this? Thanks!
Resteeming to increase conversation on this topic.
Some people joining the gym for the first time feel the same way. Exposure to a situation makes all the difference. There is nothing intrinsic making you an "introvert".
Labels never really help to define who we are. They can stereotype us and give some indications of ourselves. However everyone is so unique and individual that folks cannot and should not be corralled into verbage that limits their real selves and their real potential. good read. Thanks for sharing. - Troy
more or less, yes.
Unfortunately what people know and believe still the old same idea, those who go out and having fun in parties or whatsoever are extrovert, otherwise introvert. That's all
nop. read the article.
I think he was actually agreeing with you.
If I understand correctly he's saying that it's unfortunate that what most people today believe is the same old idea. AKA that those who go out are extroverted and the rest introverted.
You have to take the time to read between the grammar ;)
Hmm I would say that actually there are people who get most of their energy only from interactions with others as well as the people who get most of their energy from within. There is nothing wrong with it untill eg. you cannot do anything by yourself because there is no people around or when you are walking out to be with other people and you are deep inside your own thoughts and not interacting with them at all.
Actually you are right that most of the people are social animals and even those who are typically closed to others will finally get the temptation to go out of the shell and being extra or introvert is actually a phase rather then a definition of your personality.
It just happens to be a "phase" that many people (most introverts) live their whole life in, many by apparent "choice" (I'll leave it to you to decide whether the appearance of choice is an illusion or not), mind you.
choice is an illusion.
I'm leaning that way. Don't know if that's really a provable assertion, though.
yeap. more or less that.
can everyone judge someone if he/she an introvert if he/she just sit at home and never go outside to talk and play with some other else or just to say hello..? no, coz everyone need a time to be explore about their self. we never know that maybe the people that we judge as an introvert may have a friends much more than us.
we could even notice that as people get older, they tend to spend more time alone.
I was born with a weird combination of introversion, shyness, and timidity. I was never able to look a girl in the eyes, (Yes, it was that bad). But with the power of meaningful associations, some of these traits have gone into oblivion. The power of association cannot be underestimated.
Nice piece there
You were not born. You were brought to be like that from your environment — mostly parents.
Introversion and extraversion are valid concepts in my opinion.
I find the most useful application of this is how to deal with ourselves and others in time of stress or duress.
When in need to 'recharge' the introvert will want to be left alone, to be with oneself. The extravert, on the other hand, will recharge his/her batteries by searching out for company and talking things through.
Also, I must say, that the article seems to imply that introversion has a bad rep and a negative perception but it doesn't have to.
Depends how you were taught. Some times you might need people to "recharge" for some situations. Others you might need to be alone.
It seems that everyone today is an introvert. For me it signals how nonsense the term is. It is some kind of "special budge".
I can fully agree that we go through different phases in life where circumstances lead us to act more as an introvert or extrovert. I do not agree that the whole consept is bogus. In my expirience it is not where you get energy but how much different scenarios cost you in energy. I can be sociable and act in an extroverted way but it is exhausting. My wife can do the same but will only feel more energized afterwards. This has been true for my entire life and I don't expect it to change.
the interesting part is that even those who claim to be charging "alone", do it at least with one dear individual. Also many introverts that claim to recharge "alone' after they spend some time alone studying, they want to go out and meet other people for a change.
my point is that it varies depending on the way we engage with situations in life such as employment and exams rather than "who we really are".
Yeah true. I also wonder if maybe trauma, especially childhood trauma, can cause one's personality to fragment and then the fragment is forced to make abstractions just to be able to cope.
I heard this one quote once by a famous psychologist. He said, "One must be sympathetic with people who live in a false world, because the real one is intolerable."
I am an introvert and I'm very happy and content with that. I have good friends, a cat and an interesting intellectual life where I often do stuff on my own. I love my life ;-)
Congratulations @kyriacos! You have completed some achievement on Steemit and have been rewarded with new badge(s) :
Click on any badge to view your own Board of Honor on SteemitBoard.
For more information about SteemitBoard, click here
If you no longer want to receive notifications, reply to this comment with the word
STOPI think you bring up some good points such as I think we can play into our natural tendencies, ie, by that I mean if I'm an introvert and I'm always telling myself I'm an introvert I'm going to be more within myself than I normally would.
That said there's no question that some people are more naturally introverts and some more naturally extroverts. Of course none of us are all of one, we fall at different placeson the scale and I would even agree to some extend where were at in life will change our personality or natural state of being a little bit.
While I am an introvert I was more outgoing in college where I was surrounded by people my age and there was no shortage of social situations to dive into where as today I'm a bit more introverted.
I pretty much agree with most of your post with the exception that there's no such thing as introvert or extravert
They can probably change throughout ones life. Good post.
I would classify myself more as an introvert because I prefer my own company rather than the company of others.
I disagree with you entirely, but it was a really well written piece that I enjoyed reading, and it definitely gave me food for thought.
I know. It's true. I used to rely on the claim that I was an introvert, or "shy," as a way of escaping communication. It was an easy way out of uncomfortable situations. But it was a weakness. It's important for those of us wallflowers to seek out the light that shines in others, and seek out the waters of emotions that nourish us, through connections with other people.
Yes, I see your point. I see that in you. Glad to know you are reaching out of the cracks now, like a dandelion.
Nope, from personal experience I can state that I am an introvert, I can't stand to be around people all the time, and in fact every summer after having spent 9 months around people all the time, I get sick of everyone even my closest friends, they're like a great song that I've been listening to on repeat for weeks straight I need a break from them so that I can appreciate them and not resent them. Everyone else, who I am not acquainted with just seem to talk about the most inane topics that no one should care about, like stupid gossip, or just talking about people in general. I really just don't need people most of the time. I think that that is what being an introvert is about mostly, just a disdain for small talk and less of a need for human interaction, and sometimes even a break from people.
There is only one way to create a balance here: INTROVERSION AND EXTROVERSION are REAL human traits, human beings manifest these traits no doubt. However, I strongly believe that no one is 100% naturally born with any of these traits inherent in him. Rather, whether one is an introvert or an extrovert to me, is a sum total of generic and environmental/social influences on such a person.
you are answering your own argument
PSSST. Hey. Over here. Don't tell anyone but the "Jungian narrative" defines personality in terms of function rather than traits. It's a (buzz word) "psycho-dynamic model of personality." This simply means there's parts which interact with each other.
I believe psychology treats extroversion as a scale - you have it to some degree or another. Too little of it would put you into what we describe as "introversion", but they seem to try and avoid this distinction now. In other words, it is all about distinct signs of extroversion or absence thereof.
On a side note, I would like to invite you to check out our announcement of a community for quality writers. I hope you will consider joining us. Thanks.
if it measures it on a scale then how they find the "mean"? who are they comparing to and why?
There is a mean on the scale, but it is not associated strongly with certain characteristics. It is associated with some, but placing in the middle would mean that, depending on how you look at it, you exhibit neither the characteristics associated with "extroversion" nor the characteristics associated with "introversion" or you exhibit both to a small degree. I don't know what the distribution of the population looks like on that scale, but I'd assume the majority of people would place right in the middle, meaning that the majority doesn't really fall under either introversion or extroversion. And that's exactly why with many people it is hard to say whether they are "introverted" or "extroverted".
Behavior is also determined by other traits that are not related to extroversion, which further complicates the task of putting people into one of the two restrictive categories. And once you account for context, you have to be dangerously low or high on extroversion for the observer to be more or less sure that you are either an introvert or an extrovert.
you just described why sociology and psychology are bullshit
Well, we don't know better.
exactly. and thus we shouldn't come up with terms that lead to policies that affect peoples lives.
Research in sciences is an on-going thing. We have to come up with something in order to progress to the next stage of understanding. What you describe is collateral damage, not an intended result. It is highly likely that a couple of generations later these terms will be treated very differently - hopefully, in a way that doesn't negatively affect people's lives.
At no point do you actually discuss extroversion or introversion beyond what someone relying on pop memes would be expected to know. So, if your point is "Don't define yourself by a pop meme", then I'd agree with you. I'd also suggest taking the next step and cracking open a psychology textbook.
Here's the point where you've oversimplified to the point of missing the point: you've equated extroversion/introversion to social interaction only. That's not the "Jungian narrative."
Love this. People always try to put a label on everything; relationships, marriages, personality, status. Lets just stop putting a tittle on everything and enjoy life as it is!
I wrote onsomething similar. Please check it out if you hsve the chance